Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[rational experiences]

If humans after the Egyptian event of civilization destroyed by nuclear pyramid. They were set free to be tribal again.

Were irradiated mutated says the verbal story. Life of the human diminished.

Verbal stories not documented as the history. History remembered recalled in a healing evolving returning human evolution population. By mind psyche behaviours.

Visionary advice gained us by human healthier DNA memories.

Higher psyche status then applied the study. Reason.... the pyramids were the evidence that it happened.

Science returns to consciousness of the life body of humans DNA evolved.

So the storyline would define the healed human after the ancient event nuclear decimation on earth. Only when healed and conscious.

Our new biology healed. Ability to reference and use science re established.

With a warning that goes with the developing psyche. Science re established and it is emergent as our destroyer. By human behaviour.

The pattern of man the egotist.

Is the human reality.

Men agreed that it was future predicted of regained life mind irradiation. Knowing heavy metal mind states that men inherit forewarned.

Human inability to remember by dementia causes loss of intellectual behaviours in fallout. Falling star.

History depicts those behaviours. Loss of morality and intellect.

Agreed in our past to return time dated life after its sacrifice to 0 AD knowing our brother the scientist nuclear destroyer mind would return.

As he is controlled by his lying.

To 0 place zero was important to not allow future argument as they knew he would.

They kept the 1000AD shroud attack and bodies of human evidence. They knew.

The document was humans proof nuclear decimation placed healed genetic life returned about 6000 years ago.

 

[Brian2]

No doubt. You can dream up mechanisms involving miracles for all sorts of phenomena. But none of these will help us understand nature. In fact they will do the opposite, because if the laws of nature can be overridden arbitrarily by supernatural intervention then there are no laws we can rely on to explain anything. So science becomes a waste of time.

And since, empirically, we know science is not a waste of time, we choose to reject miracles as part of the process by which nature came to be the way it is. That's what methodological naturalism is all about. It works, as a method for understanding nature. For this reason, no scientifically literate person will entertain the idea you have put forward.

This is the pointy end of the stick however and it is possible no doubt to interpret Genesis allegorically but at this stage even the allegorical is being challenged by science.
And really it is only the methodological naturalism that is really challenging the Bible and it is producing atheists and non believers. (demanding that Genesis can only mean what the YECs say is also part of the problem imo)
Science can come up only with naturalistic answers in places where God says different.
"I created it all!"
"No it has always been here and the universe just jumped into existence by accident"
"I gave life!!"
"No life is just chemicals and physics (which jumped into existence) and there is no need for a life giver-------------and consciousness, if it really exists, is a by product of chemistry".

Scientifically people who believe as I do exist and they are not all fundies and don't mind being seen as fools by other scientifically literate people.

And of course I look more like a fool because I am not a scientist.

 

[Brian2]

There is no evidence of God.

Ciao

- viole

Maybe you mean there is no evidence that science can use to make a God hypothesis.
I do see logical reasons when I look around however and I even see that God has been active in revealing things to the ancient Jews.

 

[rational experiences]

This is the pointy end of the stick however and it is possible no doubt to interpret Genesis allegorically but at this stage even the allegorical is being challenged by science.
And really it is only the methodological naturalism that is really challenging the Bible and it is producing atheists and non believers. (demanding that Genesis can only mean what the YECs say is also part of the problem imo)
Science can come up only with naturalistic answers in places where God says different.
"I created it all!"
"No it has always been here and the universe just jumped into existence by accident"
"I gave life!!"
"No life is just chemicals and physics (which jumped into existence) and there is no need for a life giver-------------and consciousness, if it really exists, is a by product of chemistry".

Scientifically people who believe as I do exist and they are not all fundies and don't mind being seen as fools by other scientifically literate people.

And of course I look more like a fool because I am not a scientist.

A human mans thesis of a man says I created it all by a man's scientific thesis which is lying.

As it is a human to human challenge with men claiming a man self is his own deification as fact.

In reality if a God exists it is not human science.

Earth which machine scientists use is not a deity.

Hence a deity owns no purpose in science.

If a human says when I die I will be with a deity that statement is also not science.

If you ask a human theist are you not in fact claiming by a theory what one human life consciousness would never know ....what it would be like to never die as the scientist human.

What he wishes to succeed for himself proving he is lying.

 

[Brian2]

Correct. Filling in the gaps in our knowledge of how the natural world works is the job of science, not religion. I am confident that most Christian theologians from the main denominations would not disagree.

There are many questions however that science does not try to answer, to do with purpose or meaning in the world, and others which it cannot answer, such as why the order in nature (the "laws" of physics etc) is the way it is. These things just are, as far as science is concerned.

More importantly, to my mind, science does not try to provide us with a guide for living our lives. That is really what religions mostly do. Their job is not to explain the natural world, as a sort of rival to science. That is not what they are for.

As I said, science is inserting itself into the role of religion and what God said He did.
Science is going to be part of the ethics of the future (and no doubt is today) and what God says is right or wrong won't be considered for a moment. (Not that Christians should force their morals onto everyone)
But of course arguing about these things with atheists is pretty much a waste of time. They need a couple of slaps across the face to knock some sense into them but that is not really the way to go and I'm not the person for that anyway.
I'm from a main denomination (Anglican) and I was amazed to find out how many were YECs. Whether the theologians think allegory or not is irrelevant to them, they understand it as they do.

 

[Brian2]

Like what

The ocean on the earth and the thick layer of cloud.
The main order of creation and events in that time period.
The actual events, that the dry land and sea were separated, that the mountains rose and valleys sunk down, that the atmosphere (firmament) was made (and of course it had to be altered in composition to support life)
That the earth brought forth the plants and animals. (iows they were not foofed into being)
It is not just Genesis which speaks of the creation time and some of this comes from other parts of the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Well, we all know that in history many supernatural explanations have been replaced by naturalistic ones. Example: Thor --> Electromagnetism to explain lightnings.

Do you have evidence of something going in the other direction? Something which had a naturalistic explanation that changed into a supernatural one?

That never happens, and that should be evidence enough of the crushing superiority of naturalism vs. supernaturalism. So, the God of the gaps is called that because there are less and less places (gaps) where He can hide.

Ciao

- viole

Science has it's limits but science and scientists do not know where those limits are. (So I'm telling them and being ignored of course)
There is no crushing superiority of naturalism, it is just that science explains nature and people in the past who have not known the science have postulated Gods for some of those unknows things.

 

[Brian2]

You still don’t know what evidence are.

A “claim” of an “out-of-body experience” is just “a claim”.

A “claim” is not an “evidence”.

And a “claim” of a “spirit”, is just another “claim”, you don’t have evidence that spirit exist in the first place, so you don’t have evidence for spirit.

So you have 3 claims, one for NDE, another for OOBE, and still another for “spirit”.

You basically have no evidence whatsoever...you have only added more claims to NDE.

Those people experiencing the “out-of-body” while being clinically dead, are just testimony of one’s experience, that’s not “evidence”.

Evidence would be any 3rd-party person or whole bunch of people can independently observe and measure that person having the OOB experience.

The evidence for the OBEs is the verified information that some of these people have given.
Is it that you do not see that?

 

[Brian2]

A human mans thesis of a man says I created it all by a man's scientific thesis which is lying.

As it is a human to human challenge with men claiming a man self is his own deification as fact.

In reality if a God exists it is not human science.

Earth which machine scientists use is not a deity.

Hence a deity owns no purpose in science.

If a human says when I die I will be with a deity that statement is also not science.

If you ask a human theist are you not in fact claiming by a theory what one human life consciousness would never know ....what it would be like to never die as the scientist human.

What he wishes to succeed for himself proving he is lying.

It is unfortunate that the whole conflict of religion and science has developed.
Religion is not science and is believed by faith.
Those things pertaining to God and what He said that He did, that science wants to speak about, that is also believed by faith.

 

[Audie]

It is unfortunate that the whole conflict of religion and science has developed.
Religion is not science and is believed by faith.
Those things pertaining to God and what He said that He did, that science wants to speak about, that is also believed by faith.

Beliefs like yours are why some religious people
will never begin to comprehend science.

 

[Audie]

If by human you mean “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” then NO there where no humans before Adam.

If you allow for a wider definition that would include Neanderthals, and homo erectus the answer is yes, there where humans before Adam,


(this is my view)

You would sound more convincingly expert if you wrote Latin names correctly. Its super
easy

 

[viole]

Maybe you mean there is no evidence that science can use to make a God hypothesis.
I do see logical reasons when I look around however and I even see that God has been active in revealing things to the ancient Jews.

No. I mean there is no evidence whatsoever. Or, at least, no more evidence then, say, invisible garden fairies. Or any other God, including the great Juju at the bottm of the sea, or Apollo.

And you have to ask yourself: why did the the creator of the whole universe sort of declared a middle eastern tribe as His chosen one? Isn’t more likely that a middle estern tribe made up a God who likes them? Like most Gods do as a courtesy to their creators?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Science has it's limits but science and scientists do not know where those limits are. (So I'm telling them and being ignored of course)
There is no crushing superiority of naturalism, it is just that science explains nature and people in the past who have not known the science have postulated Gods for some of those unknows things.

Yes, and naturalism systematically overruled them. You never have it the other way round.
So, it should be clear where to put our money.

ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

The scriptures do not say how God formed the man out of the ground. Why not by evolution from other creatures?

No. The word is very clear - "from the dust of the ground". Don't be a blasphemer. You have the temerity to change the word of the Lord?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am talking about claims that have been verified. Claims about knowing what is going on in the room or another room while unconscious.
The evidence piles up is what you should be saying.



What I said stands and if anyone changes it it should be me.
All we know is that life can come from other life. Beyond that is hypothesis.



You talk about a difference between science and religion while at the same time it is you who is pretending to know the answer before the research is done.
You speak about falsifiable claims when the claim about life coming from chemistry and the laws of physics is not falsifiable. Trying to turn chemicals into a living thing could go on for 20000 years with no luck and yet the claim would not be falsified.
The claim is the presumption that life did not come from God.
I don't mind going beyond the science at this point because of my faith but you would deny that is what you are doing even when you claim to know the answer even now.

If you want anyone to consider the existence of your God in explaining how the universe works, then you'll need to first demonstrate that said God exists. Until you can do that, you have no business inserting said God into scientific explanations of the universe. That's the reason scientists don't consider Gods when trying to explain how things work - because they're not in evidence and scientific explanations works just fine without having to insert any unevidenced God's into them.

Not to mention the fact that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything at all about how anything works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OBEs associated with NDEs are good evidence for consciousness outside the body but it is hard for this sort of evidence of 'spirit' to be taken seriously because of ignorance and prejudice.

It really isn't evidence for "spirit" because you've never demonstrated the existence of "spirit" in the first place. It's just an assertion. Also, it's not an actual explanation that actually explains anything. In that sense, it's pretty much just the same empty claim as "God did it."
What is the definition of "spirit?" What are the properties of spirits? How do they operate? What mechanisms are involved? How do we identify and measure spirits? None of this is even explained or answered with these claims of OBEs and spirits.

The only thing that we know at the moment is that life comes from other life.
If you want to say that life magicked itself into existence from dead matter then that is your opinion and does not agree with what we know, that life comes from other life.
Maybe it did magic itself into existence, all science has to do is make up a definition of life that only includes chemistry and physics and it could have done that.
This sort of thing is the way imo we get the science of the gaps. The science that is presumed to be real even before research.
Atheists can say that all the evidence points to life coming from chemistry when the reality is that it is the chemistry that is the only thing that has been studied and other things like the OBEs in NDEs are poo haaed.

"Life magicked itself into existence from dead matter ... ?" Wait, this is how theists believe that God created life, isn't it? Why are you trying to pin that on scientists?

Our bodies are composed of chemicals. Life is chemistry. Your body is animated thanks to endless amounts of chemical reactions that are being produced at any given moment. When these chemical reactions stop occurring, we die. I don't know why you are having such a hard time with this.

OBEs and NDEs will continue to be "poo haaed" as long as they are asserted without evidence or proper explanation.

 

[Muffled]

Apparently some immunologist has recently published a book arguing that evolution and the Christian belief that all humans descended from Adam and Eve are not incompatible.

Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution

From what I gleaned in the article, the idea is that humans descended from earlier hominids but then God also magically created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago, and their kids Cain and Abel intermarried with other humans who had evolved naturally. So by 1CE, all living humans had some of traceable lineage back to Adam and Eve.

Personally I think this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. But I'm curious what you think? Especially those of you with more knowledge of evolution, biology, genetics, etc.

I believe there ae two creation stories. Man is created in the first one with no time frame and Adam created in the second one with a time frame of about 5000 BC. So the original creation still puts the lie to evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

sure that is a possibility



At least not in the same way humans do. (it seems to me)




Because those things are hard to explain given the deterministic nature of the electrical impulses of the human bran.

There has to be something beyond the brain to explain that stuff.

Why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is the pointy end of the stick however and it is possible no doubt to interpret Genesis allegorically but at this stage even the allegorical is being challenged by science.
And really it is only the methodological naturalism that is really challenging the Bible and it is producing atheists and non believers. (demanding that Genesis can only mean what the YECs say is also part of the problem imo)
Science can come up only with naturalistic answers in places where God says different.
"I created it all!"
"No it has always been here and the universe just jumped into existence by accident"
"I gave life!!"
"No life is just chemicals and physics (which jumped into existence) and there is no need for a life giver-------------and consciousness, if it really exists, is a by product of chemistry".

Scientifically people who believe as I do exist and they are not all fundies and don't mind being seen as fools by other scientifically literate people.

And of course I look more like a fool because I am not a scientist.

When did any God say any of that, and how was it verified?

 

[gnostic]

I am not a YEC , I dont belive in the 6000 stuff

Even then, Genesis 3 say that Adam must toil the soil, to grow his own food, as did Cain being a farmer (Genesis 4), while his brother Abel tends herds of sheep and goat.

So they were farmers and shepherds, which respectively meant crop farming (agriculture) and animal domestication.

This is more settle lifestyle, that exist during Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures of the time.

And supposedly when Cain left the family, he supposedly found and built the first “city”, hence civilization.

So that would put Adam and his sons around the times of late Neolithic period if you considered both constructing and living in city as well as farming, which is more settled lifestyle.

But humans have been around a lot longer than living in farming settlements (villages and towns), and even lot longer than city living, which require a great deal of planning.

Farming and growing crops, living in settlements as opposed to nomadic culture, creating pottery ware to store food and water, were part of the Neolithic Revolution that started around 12,000 years ago.

Urbanization and city life, started with proto-city, started about 7000 years ago.

But for most of human history, the Homo sapiens, hence for tens of thousands of years, humans were nomadic, living as hunters and gatherers. Their tools and hunting weapons were made from stones, flints, bones and woods. They only stay in place no longer than they have to, trying to find games, some fruits in the vicinity of their encampments and the all-important water.

This period is the Paleolithic period, which have been divided “lower, “middle” and “upper” Paleolithic. The further back in time that archaeology explore, the cruder were tool and more primitive were techniques in making these tools.

And as I said in my previous reply Homo sapiens sapiens, which are subspecies of Homo sapiens, have been around 60,000 years (but could be a lot longer than that date), which more or less coincided with the start of the Upper Paleolithic.

But earlier species of the Homo sapiens, extend as far back as 200,000 years ago, perhaps longer still. This would mean that the Homo sapiens were contemporaries to the Neanderthals and even contemporaries to the much older Homo erectus, which didn’t become extinct till 140,000 years ago. The Neanderthals didn’t become extinct till about 40,000 years ago.

Anyway, the points being the modern human species (Homo sapiens sapiens) than there have been around lot longer than those who started farming and growing livestock (hence animal husbandry) or building cities.

So you are still wrong that Adam being the first Homo sapiens sapiens. Plus this Adam and his Garden of Eden are still nothing more than a myth.